Is democracy in crisis? No, there’s just a new type of emerging democracy

Share this

Read more!

Get our weekly email

Enter your email address

saveournorthwood.co.uk

It is one of the most robust findings in political
research. It holds over nations and times: the existence of a democratic
deficit. Support for democracy as an ideal is still pretty much intact among the
majority of citizens. (That is not a given as the grim lessons of the 1930s
tell us, when it is was common among the masses, and fashionable among the
intelligentsia, to disparage the parliamentary system and flirt with
autocracy.) However, satisfaction with
the performance of their own democratic system does not tally with citizens’
political aspirations. Add to this a slew of other indicators of “democratic
impairment”, such as low voter turnout, especially among the young, little trust
in politicians and political institutions, the rise of extremist parties on the
right and left, and one will be excused in believing that democracy - the
traditional liberal democracy as we know it – is in crisis. Or is it?

The question of whether there
is a crisis of democracy is one of the most important and vexing issues of our
days. So, let’s not rush into facile answers and first ask ourselves some basic
questions about democracy. For example, what does this ideal that most people
still believe in entail? The democratic theorist Mark Warren once said that democracy
consists of two ideals whose realisation are both necessary for a healthy,
flourishing political system: the distribution of powers of decision-making to
those potentially affected by collective decisions, and equal participation in
collective judgement. The first ideal is the one that figures most prominently
in debates about democracy in the media and learned journals. This is, what you
might call, the canonical image of democracy. The political contrivances that
the media get excited about. This first
ideal consists of the procedures, beliefs and practices that most western
nations have institutionalised over the course of the last two centuries, for
the purpose of protecting against an arbitrary state and to develop structures
of accountability. The result is the well-known ‘liberal electoral democracy’ that
is characterised by a regime of competitive parties, limited opportunities for
political participation through voting and organised interest groups, representative
oversight and accountability, constitutional constraints on government
activity, due process rights against the state, the right to speak and
associate, and an administration of experts governed by an administrative ethos.
It is one of the most important achievements of collective human ingenuity. When
we talk of crisis, this is the kind if democracy that occupies our collective
imagination. Let’s call it Democracy1.

I want to focus on
the second democratic ideal; that of collective judgement and individual
development. I call it Democracy2. According to this ideal democracy is an
arrangement for collective learning and problem solving. It is value-driven,
but only in the way that values manifest themselves in concrete issues. It
requires processes of communication through which individuals come to know each
other and develop their preferences, articulate their values and beliefs, and
develop skills of collective judgement; usually by forming civic associations
based on voluntary attachments. When we see democracy in this light, two things
immediately strike us: while it receives much less attention in the media, and
is often actively discouraged by political elites, there is no talk of crisis here.
In fact, this developmental and participatory
form of democracy is thriving in our post-crash world.

A few examples. In
Italy, the Netherlands, the UK and other European countries, citizens come
together on an unprecedented scale to produce social goods such as sustainable
energy and food, long-term care, or rural transport and broadband. In
disadvantaged neighbourhoods in Birmingham, Rotterdam, Dortmund, Milan, Antwerp
and other large metropolitan areas, citizens partner up with administrators and
third sector organisations to successfully manage complex social issues such as
crime, social housing, prostitution, ethnic integration, and local economic
development. Large crowds of ordinary people go to the streets to protest
massive urban development in Stuttgart and education policies in Hamburg.

I
could go on, but my point is that these people are not estranged from
democracy. They are concerned about the eroding environment, the predatory
practices of the energy cartels, unhealthy food, ineffective crime policies,
rampant urban development, precarious housing for low-income groups, an unfair
educational system, the erosion of care for the sick and elderly. They feel
that “official democracy”, the democracy that the media report on, does not do
well in addressing these concerns, let alone solving them. People haven’t
abandoned politics, but politics, they feel, has abandoned them. So, they
organise themselves, coming together under the banner of Democracy2, democracy
as collective problem solving.

This is a different
kind of politics. Democracy2 is not about verbal fights, political grandstanding
and grandiose promises, but about collaboration and deliberation. Working
together to overcome differences and find creative solutions to ‘things that
matter’. Democracy2 is not about
shareholder value but bringing back older more sustainable forms of economic
organisation in which the notions of profit and debt are refashioned and made
to work for a more fair and just economic order. Democracy2 is inclusionary,
open, and based on mutual respect and fairness. John Dewey, untiring champion of democracy, called this “public making”.
People come together to form a public when they feel they can make a difference
and effect real change.

So, if there is
reason to be optimistic about democracy, why do the media and the academic
classes indulge in talk about impairment, crisis and disaffected citizens? I
think this is because, unbeknown to ourselves, we have come to see democracy
in a particular light. Over the years we have come to confuse a particular form
of democracy with its substance. That form is Democracy1, electoral liberal
democracy. It has congealed into the powerful doctrine of democratic elitism
that has suffused our language, our imagination and our aspirations.

Democratic
elitism stipulates that decision-making should be confined to elected elites,
that democracy is, and should be, procedural (a method for maintaining a
relatively open society by rotating elites), that civil society and political
society must be kept apart and that civil society can only insert itself in
political society through elections, that democratic accountability is
restricted to this periodic elite rotation based on a competitive struggle for
votes, and that equal participation in collective judgement through association
presents a threat to democratic stability. This is why most politicians react
with indifference to examples of citizen participation, and why the media never
report on it. It’s off the radar. It is not considered to be part of ‘real’
politics.

What makes
democratic elitism so hard to resist is that it is supported by three seemingly
powerful arguments. First, that the people are incapable and unwilling to
understand complex contemporary society. Second, that contemporary society is
too large to be governed by direct participation. For both of these reasons
elite deliberation and expert public administration should substitute for
popular sovereignty. Third, is the fear of, and protection against, the
irrationality and anti-democratic tendencies of the masses, which ordains that
preservation of democratic values is best entrusted to elected elites. But these arguments are almost
wholly self-fulfilling. They are as much a product of Democracy1 as its familiar
outward appearance of institutions, procedures and political rituals.

When people feel
that politicians don't care, or are out of touch, or promote ideological pet
solutions against all common sense, they turn away from politics. Why bother? This
is the real meaning of the democratic deficit. Most people want to engage with
democracy. But not the democracy of political parties, powerful lobbying
organisations, and the spectacle of politicians arguing about a political
agenda that is not theirs. Citizens care for responsibility, respect and a
measure of control. It is astonishing to see how ordinary people are then able
to master complexity, resolve conflict and arrive at creative solutions.

Politicians and
officials believe that, apart from the periodic vote, they don’t need the
public. This is a fatal misunderstanding, as the current state of our public
sector and the natural environment suggests. Politicians need the public voice
more than ever. This is not just a plea for more civic participation, however;
important as that is in itself. I am arguing for a more far-reaching
transformation of democracy. The importance of the public voice lies in the
values and in the modes of communication and problem solving that characterise
it. The two kinds of democracy need each
other. Political society and the civic sphere require each other to address the
overwhelming economic, social and environmental issues of our times. It is for
this reason that, in my opinion, the great democratic challenge of our times is
to ensure that the virtues of Democracy2 transfer to Democracy1.

openDemocracy has worked for two years investigating the dark money driving Brexit. We have many more leads to chase down, but need your support to keep going. Please give what you can today – it makes a difference.

Related

This article is published under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence. If you have any
queries about republishing please
contact us.
Please check individual images for licensing details.